Is this employment policy at my work reasonable? **Title edited by MNHQ**

[MissRabbitsDayOff]

Name change. Long-term poster. This might sound goady but I'm just trying to see what people think about the following policy at my workplace.

At interviews, all candidates are given a score based on how well they do. In the rare event of a tie between a white person and a person from an ethnic minority background, the job will be offered to the person from the ethnic minority background to increase diversity.

YABU - The policy is unreasonable.
YANBU - The policy is not unreasonable.

@MapGirlExtraordinaire

On the assumption its a workplace or industry where non white people are currently under represented then this is a fair, legal and IMO right policy to have in place.

Once we've got parity across a majority of industries, at all levels of seniority, then this sort of policy will no longer be needed. I look forward to that being the case.

The same applies for other imbalances, eg sex, disability and others

We have this policy. I think it’s important.

I'm white. I think it's fair. It's not a perfect system but the key is 'all things being equal' between the candidates. How else should completely equal candidates be chosen between? How well they fit with the team? How much the hiring manager likes them? Companies can't do nothing, because statistically then if they leave it up to personal discretion, the white male gets the position a disproportionately high proportion of the time. And unless we believe that white men are inherently better at work than other demographics, then there is usually discrimination against people due to race, sex, etc. Unconscious bias is so hard to train against and disprove and so common, and if it wasn't, policies like this wouldnt be needed. For people saying it's wrong, what is the alternative to have proportional representation for various groups? Because leaving individuals to do it themselves has proven not to work, people hire people who are most like them, so how else do we change this

@Serin

I've been involved in probably 100s of interviews over 30 years and only once in all that time have 2 candidates scored exactly the same. So if the company are relying on this as a sole tactic to increase the diversity of their workforce, id say its a non starter. I like the policy of giving peoe from underrepresented groups guaranteed interviews.

This is an important point. If the company is genuinely committed to increasing diversity, a diversity policy that they will never in practice have occasion to use is something of a chocolate teapot.

Your company is in the VERY small minority because it's widely known how companies will not hire ethnic minorities based on their NAMES. I worked for a company that hired a Finance and Operations Manager who had no Finance or Operations managing experience and had no finance background of any kind. She is white and just faked it all the way through her time. Something someone from an ethnic minority background wouldn't even have the opportunity to do. So in the few cases where there's a tie and it's a matter of picking one person. Then I think it's good that the person from the ethnic minority group gets chosen because for that one person, a hundred others in the same situation are not being picked.

Will they be assuming my ethnicity? Presumably you will be asked to declare it at the application stage, as frequently happens for public sector jobs, do it will be self declared.

"What if my mixed heritage children from a wealthy background and in private schooling are put up against a man from a low socio economic background who has had all the disadvantages that class brings, is it right they get it based on their skin tone?*

If your child is equal in all other ways to this man from a poor background, and the company wants to give it to a candidate with mixed heritage, your child would get it. If the company want to give the job to a man from.a comprehensive school, he would get it. It's entirely up to the company what priorities they have. As long as the two candidates are otherwise equal.

That policy is outrageous. It’s just not acceptable to pick someone solely on their race, “positively” or otherwise.

Oh what like selecting high court judges for example?

No idea - not my field. I'm sure those in the legal profession could come up with one. Better still, look at the routes into the legal profession in the first place and the attractiveness of the profession to ethnic minority groups over say... medicine etc

It should be about who is better for the job. Nothing else
how can you assume that the non white person has had to "jump through hurdles" more than them?! you cannot know this just by someones skin colour you have NO idea!!! your doing exactly what you claim is wrong and discriminating purely on skin colour

Not really missing the point. I love how when people refer to employing people from disadvantaged backgrounds people automatically think of them as needy or it is about the company finding the most disadvantaged candidate.

No, it is about the unfairness that when we discuss diversity class (and other issues that are not protected) are pushed aside because it is too difficult or they are not what is currently being discussed in society. That is the problem with companies deciding which factors of peoples lives they will try and use to decide who to employ. It can end up being used as a tool to discriminate against others.

@Chitaufree

I mean...what do you do if it’s a

• white person from an impoverished background vs a black or brown person from a wealthy background?

• a white woman vs a black or brown man

• a disabled white person vs a non-disabled black or brown person

Why would you just look at race if you’re that concerned about inclusion? What about social background, sexism, disabilities? Or do you just prefer to make assumptions on skin colour?

Well it depends on the individual workplace and where a need to encourage diversity has been identified. Presumably OPs workplace has decided that they need to encourage more racial diversity. My workplace doesn't have anyone with a disability working there at the moment; they may decide when recruiting next to take positive action to recruit someone with a disability if the situation described in the OP arises.

White person here - as that is what you originally asked for - but with black daughters.

I have no problem with it, having seen the c**p my DDs have to deal with from a young age, telling them they are worth less than their white peers.

If it helps to explain, though, here is my experience of being passed over despite being the 'better' candidate on their scoring system.

It was a marketing/sales job, where 80% of the income came from one market, and 20% from another. The feedback I had after being told I was unsuccessful was very positive, great application, great interview. But the successful candidate had widespread experience of marketing/sales to the 20% market, and this had been identified as a growth area for the company. They didn't need someone to maintain the status quo, where the 80% market was saturated, but to grow the smaller segment. So the other candidate was better for the future of the company, even though I had 'out performed' them on every other measure.

I was disappointed but it didn't occur to me to feel hard done by - the other person fitted better with their wider strategic goals. And I think increased diversity can be a wider strategic goal.

Yeah. Website full of women on 6 figure salaries who can't even skim read threads to see what it actually is about

Oh well.

I remember a few years ago, the south African rugby team was told they need 50/50 white and black, they couldnt always put the best player in the position because of the 50/50 rule, they really under performed for many years because of the rule!

That policy is outrageous. It’s just not acceptable to pick someone solely on their race, “positively” or otherwise

Any ideas about why this completely legal policy might be necessary?

@Memedru

I remember a few years ago, the south African rugby team was told they need 50/50 white and black, they couldnt always put the best player in the position because of the 50/50 rule, they really under performed for many years because of the rule!

That's different and they have obviously, very obviously, different laws to uk since they are a different country. This is not the same thing.

This is how it works. If two people are equally as good, you have to go with the one who has had the most disadvantage. Because historically the white person will always get chosen. Always.

No that's not how it works at all. It's purely down to the company to decide on what basis to decide between two otherwise equal candidates. If they choose to do it based on race or sex that is up to them. They may pick the one who plays golf or went to Eton. They are not obliged to pick the most disadvantaged (and they wouldn't even know about a lot of potential disadvantages)

Hello from an ACTUAL MINORITY

This is not the same thing

Never, ever let that stand in the way of drawing a false equivalence. 🤣

Worth considering why it might’ve been important for the SA team to have those rules given y’know apartheid...perhaps equality of opportunity was more important than winning 🤷🏻‍♀️

but am trying to work out whether it's controversial

Of course you are.

how can you assume that the non white person has had to "jump through hurdles" more than them?! you cannot know this just by someones skin colour you have NO idea!!! your doing exactly what you claim is wrong and discriminating purely on skin colour

The company literally does not care about who jumped over the most hurdles. They want to increase ethnic diversity, whilst also getting the best possible person for the job. That is all.

YukoandHireo - no, in the situation I described, I do not have more opportunities. I am poorer and have a lower level of education than the other candidate. My class is apparent from the moment I open my mouth. You seem to be assuming that all white people are also wealthy, middle class and well educated. Some of us live in horrifically deprived areas with very few opportunities. I believe that I experience white privilege, but I don’t think that race is the only way in which a person can be disadvantaged, or that one single disadvantage a person might face (as long as it is race) is worse than other multiple disadvantages. It’s too simplistic a way of looking at the world. It would be ridiculous to say that a wealthy, well educated, middle class black man is automatically more disadvantaged than a disabled, homeless, illiterate white woman, for example.

Ethnicity in the United Kingdom as of 2011.
Share of the total population
White 87.2%
Black* 3%
Asian/Asian British: Indian 2.3%
Asian/Asian British: Pakistani 1.9%

OP - Are these the percentage representations your business is trying to achieve?

I think in all likelihood candidates are unlikely to have exactly the same experiences, background, education (diversity of education and career paths would be good as well). I think if there were good interviewers, they would call the 2 candidates back for an interview and target questions about how their different experiences/outlook could complement the team.

I've been on a few interview panels where we have to score candidates, and it's not always clear cut whether to give 4/5 or 5/5, for example. In that situation, I can imagine an interviewer deciding (consciously or not) to give a candidate from an ethnic minority background 4 instead of 5, under the assumption they'll have a better chance than a white candidate with the same score anyway.

This is exactly what I'm worried about, especially if we're making a point of reminding interviewers of the policy immediately before interviews take place.

*for example a lack of pipeline talent.

Also forgot to add - interviewers who disagree might 'compensate' by giving ethnic minorities lower scores because of their race.

I don't know much about this as I've worked for big companies all of my career but based on what friends have said for companies that don't hire 'ethnic' candidates... there are 'good' minorities and 'bad' minorities....

This is why we need strong HR procedures. Which companies that reject candidates based on names normally don't bother with anyway. So they're also the same ones that won't bother with any kind of diversity goal

P.S I am a technical woman, much more skilled than most of my male peers. I delibrately avoid any event related to female diversity. Most of the other, few skilled women I know do the same. That says a lot about the kind of people who spend so much time on these events. What has actually helped is getting women in at the 6th form/undergrad level and paying for training etc. Once people have the skills the pipeline broadened automatically.

But I know that some sectors like politics is very narrow.. because the entire sector itself is based on networks and scratching eacj others backs!